this is a movie that i watched. it is approximately the 17th installment in the paraanormal activty series. i've watched every one of these films from the beginning. even the latino spinoff one (or, as donald trump tweeted, "i saw the latest paranormal activity movie, it was the scariest film i've ever seen... and then the ghosts showed up!"), even though i think i slept through most of it. i really liked the first couple. then they just got more and more ridiculous and convoluted. even to the point of introducting time travel BS. so this is the latest and weirdest and dumbest of the bunch. the first couple were as good as they were because they worked on your imagination and your anticipation of what might happen. there were minimal special effects or makeup, just creepy tense moments. well, all that's gone. this latest film is filled with wall-to-wall CGI because apparently the people this time are using a camera that can actually see into the "ghost dimension" which basically looks like lots of dust and oily tentacles floating in the air, and a demon who is basically the oil slick from creepshow 2. and then they double- and triple-down on the whole time travel element. all to get to the big moment at the end, that the entire series to this point has led up to, to find out the demon's ulterior motive this whole time has been to become a real boy. so yeah, i think it's time somoen put this film series out of its misery

Pan had part of a great movie in it but was intertwined with a bad movie. it is as if two people took turns directing, one a good director the other some guy off the street. very frustrating to see that potential wasted, it could have been a fantastic set-up for an even more fantastic Peter Pan movie

The one thing I'll give it is that it was visually arresting most of the time. Pretty much all of Joe Wright's movies are. At the beginning of Pan there were a couple of shots that I really liked, and I said to myself that I would be able to enjoy the movie on some level as long as it looked good, but that turned out not to be the case (I mean, it looked good, but I still couldn't enjoy it).

There were two separate fatal flaws: one was this attempt to turn the very slight Peter Pan story into a franchise by saddling it with some inane mythology, full of prophecies and ancient fairy warriors. Suddenly Peter Pan is no longer the boy who wouldn't grow up, he's the chosen one, set to restore balance to the universe by awakening the fairies from their thousand-year slumber and lead a revolt against the guy mining dead fairies stuck in rocks, or something.

So, that's one issue. That's the blatant corporate attempt at world-building that there is way too much of in big event films already. But the other thing that bugged me was the exact opposite of that, which is the insane acid-trip fever-dream narrative that they went with. Some people may have liked that; I didn't at all. The pirates Moulin Rouge-ing their way through renditions of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Blitzkrieg Bop", the weird clickety-clack skeleton birds in Neverland, Garret Hedlund's impersonation of Vincent D'Onofrio in Men in Black. I felt like I was watching TOMMY or something. It was a bold stylistic choice, to be sure, but for me it didn't work.

So basically I would agree that I felt like I was watching two different movies, but two bad ones.

Ribbons wrote:Suddenly Peter Pan is no longer the boy who wouldn't grow up, he's the chosen one, set to restore balance to the universe by awakening the fairies from their thousand-year slumber and lead a revolt against the guy mining dead fairies stuck in rocks, or something.

Jesus, is that what this was?

Ribbons wrote:The pirates Moulin Rouge-ing their way through renditions of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Blitzkrieg Bop"

I don't know if I can fully convey the weirdness of the thing. It's like it's making fun of itself at times.

There was a scene where Peter was abducted from his orphanage by Neverland pirates in the middle of The Blitz, and we see British operators relaying coordinates and moving little German planes across a board. Then one of the pilots says "It looks like a flying pirate ship!" and all of a sudden there's a little tiny flying pirate ship being moved across the board as well.

Ribbons wrote:I don't know if I can fully convey the weirdness of the thing. It's like it's making fun of itself at times.

There was a scene where Peter was abducted from his orphanage by Neverland pirates in the middle of The Blitz, and we see British operators relaying coordinates and moving little German planes across a board. Then one of the pilots says "It looks like a flying pirate ship!" and all of a sudden there's a little tiny flying pirate ship being moved across the board as well.

Just watched Everybody Wants Some.I thought the ending was weak (thought it was going to end when he entered the building rather than a few minutes into the class). But other than that mild critique, I thought it was a great "spiritual successor" to Dazed and Confused. Very well-cast and they really gelled on screen.

It was great seeing Dwight from Walking Dead playing a good/nice/fun guy! I also enjoyed Wyatt Russell's character.Oh, and like Dazed and Confused, the soundtrack was perfect.

Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)

Fievel wrote:Just watched Everybody Wants Some.I thought the ending was weak (thought it was going to end when he entered the building rather than a few minutes into the class). But other than that mild critique, I thought it was a great "spiritual successor" to Dazed and Confused. Very well-cast and they really gelled on screen.

It was great seeing Dwight from Walking Dead playing a good/nice/fun guy! I also enjoyed Wyatt Russell's character.Oh, and like Dazed and Confused, the soundtrack was perfect.

Yesterday being Pearl Harbor Day, HBO showed the series The Pacific on an all day marathon. I got caught up in it last night late, watched the last 2 episodes.

I saw the whole series when it originally aired, and although good, it definetly wasn't as great as Band of Brothers. But damned if I didn't tear up numerous times last night, especially the last episode with all the homecomings. But the kick you in the balls tearjerker was the credit scenes, with the recaps of the actors and the real life heroes they portrayed was shown. What these guys went thru, then came back and led "normal" lives, with the majority of their family having no clue what hell they witnessed...powerful stuff.

I consider Band of Brothers to be one of the best things ever produced. I started The Pacific when it aired, fell behind, and never finished it. I hate the fact that that happened. My wife bought me the BoB/Pacific box set a few years ago.

I still haven't watched it.

I will change this fact.

Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)

Fievel wrote:I consider Band of Brothers to be one of the best things ever produced. I started The Pacific when it aired, fell behind, and never finished it. I hate the fact that that happened. My wife bought me the BoB/Pacific box set a few years ago.

There's definitely a difference between the two in terms of quality, but the subject matter, and the way its handled is really emotional. Its amazing how the same kind of battle scenes (storming a beach, shooting enemies etc) can be FUN to watch in some movies (anything Schwazzenegger related for example), and HARD to watch in other movies (Saving Private Ryan for example).

Anywho, I suggest you do just that: watch The Pacific from start to finish (ten episodes, so its not that hard).

caught a bit of this on cable last night. the plot centers around a team of hackers who plan to destroy the country by bringing down the power grid, screwing with traffic lights, cutting cell phone communication, crashing the stock market, and various other misdeeds.

HOW CUTE!

it's quaint to remember a time when we all thought hackers needed to go to such lengths to bring down the USA, when all they really ever had to do to destroy the country was hack some emails and release them on wikileaks.

I watched one of my all time favorite movies today, "Catch 22", directed by Mike Nichols and starring the late, great Alan Arkin. it sounds cliche but they just don't make movies like that anymore. it is way too smart to ever get made today, and even if it was, even less people would really understand it and what it is saying today than when it was originally released. Buck Henry also deserves a ton of credit for writing the screenplay, a real masterpiece, and it is one that does not follow a nice easy linear storyline but does a better job at conveying the material in doing so. a truly GREAT film and one that is even more relevant today than when it was released in regard to the way the world, and especially our country, is run.

finally watched "Birth of a Nation" tonight. not sure why anyone thought this movie was controversial at all, I found it a thoughtful and powerful statement about the foundations of this country's economic wealth based on enslaving other human beings. a slow burn of a story that culminates with a few scenes of brutal conflict ending rather anti-climatically, because of course, the bad guys(aka white guys) win.

I do remember this story being an issue as well, but not the problem that some had with the movie which was that it portrayed what they believe to be a murderer and criminal as a hero. I can tell you that we were certainly NOT taught that Nat Turner was a hero when I went to school, I clearly remember wondering why not at the time. same thing went for John Brown. all part of our country's mentality of appeasement of the south to help them get over the butthurt of losing the Civil War.

That's interesting. I live in the north and we definitely learned about both Nat Turner and John Brown in school. I guess there are still hard feelings about that era that are split along regional lines.

Ribbons wrote:That's interesting. I live in the north and we definitely learned about both Nat Turner and John Brown in school. I guess there are still hard feelings about that era that are split along regional lines.

you learned about them, sure, so did I. but were they presented in a positive manner or as criminals? or in an objective neutral light?

same here. I remember being surprised that my teachers never cast any real positive light on either Turner or Brown. they had no problem doing that for the soldiers in the Civil war, even the ones fighting to keep slavery.

I just watched the Amazon movie The Only Living Boy in New York. It's not especially good, and to me felt like a stereotype of a New Yorker article, but Jeff Bridges co-stars in what originally feels like a Latter-Jeff-Bridges Phone-It-In performance and turns out to be surprisingly moving.

Ribbons wrote:I just watched the Amazon movie The Only Living Boy in New York. It's not especially good, and to me felt like a stereotype of a New Yorker article, but Jeff Bridges co-stars in what originally feels like a Latter-Jeff-Bridges Phone-It-In performance and turns out to be surprisingly moving.

I'm not going to bother with that movie. I get all the news I need on the weather report.

"Alright Shaggy - you and Scooby head over that way. The girls and I will go this way."

watched The Mummy w/ Tommy Cruise out of pure curiosity and found myself mildly entertained and wondering why it garnered such loathsome reviews. it really does suffer from the whole Dr Jekyll monster foundation.....stuff, which should have been left out altogether or given more depth and fleshed out more. as is it feels too much like an artificial patch as a device to connect to other movies in the Dark Universe. Marvel has does the same thing only with much more deftness in order to make it seem organic to the story being told. the American Werewolf in London buddy thing was weak and they should have either killed him off for realz or had him straight up betray Cruise for power offered by Amhenhavahotass, aka the Mummy. I thought the core movie involving the story with the Mummy and cruise was alright, though, considering this WAS supposed to be a modernizing of a Saturday afternoon matinee monster movie, and say what you will about Cruise in "real life" the dude commits to a role when he takes it and he provides the Cruise energy here as well. the ending/prologue WAS atrocious and felt like a tack on, which really left me frustrated because it could have been so much better without much more effort if any. I bet if you handed this movie over to a quality director and gave them a few weeks of reshoots to replace the Hyde/Jekyll shit they could produce a GOOD movie from it. as it is it is only a flawed popcorn flick rating 5 out of 10 chakras

Yeah, I had a similar experience with The Mummy, recognizing that it was bad but not entirely hating it. Tom Cruise's charisma is always reliable, and so I enjoyed his character despite the fact that I still don't really understand what his job was. And while it's fair to be critical of Universal's blatant attempt to lazily patch their monster universe together with a S.H.I.E.L.D.-like organization, I thought Russell Crowe was great fun in the role of Jekyl/Hyde; although it looks like this "Dark Universe" is dead on arrival, I wouldn't have minded seeing more of him.

if they had given more time and energy to developing Dr Jekyll as a character and his organization i think it could have been a solid aspect to the movie and helped its narrative. Crowe's performance was fine, I almost always enjoy watching him on screen.

i actually did mention making a distinction between Cruise from his "real life" persona because I realize some people are unable to separate art from artist. I find the story of Cruise and Scientology to be extremely frustrating and disappointing, I think he is a bright talented guy who somehow got pulled into the organization early on in his adult life and they got their tentacles wrapped around him but good, whether through some kind of brain washing or straight up extortion. one could almost think that The Firm was an early cry for help. almost. I also think it is inane to compare Cruise's situation to a football player, it is not at all an accurate analogy. Cruise isn't paid to endorse products for people to buy. He doesn't get paid to help an influential publicly outspoken businessman work against worker's rights. doing commercials isn't part of Peyton's belief system, unless you want to say his belief system is do and say whatever the sponsor says to get paid$$$. i have also not seen any credible evidence that scientology donated millions of $ to help block g@y rights legislation. anyway, i'm hardly any more inconsistent than someone who cheered on a murderer for years and has no problem with Peyton profiting from a partnership with a national anti-g@y and anti-worker rights douche.

it is inane to compare Peyton Manning to Tom Cruise, because Papa John's would do just as fine without the occasional Peyton Manning commercial, but the Church of Scientology would really be struggling without Tom Cruise's star power and massive financial donations to prop itself up on. and while working a shitty minimum wage job schlepping pizzas for PJ's without health coverage or job security sounds pretty bad, it probably sounds like heaven to the average Sea Org member working off his or her billion-year contract in slavery and third-world living conditions. and anyone who tries to deny the Church of Scientology's homophobia is just being willfully ignorant, they very publicly supported Prop 8 in California to make Dumbledore marriage illegal and have a long history of using "auditing" as a form of Dumbledore conversion therapy. but wait, it's part of Tom Cruise's "belief system" so that apparently makes it OK? i guess Mike Pence is off the hook too then, huh?

i've never had a problem separating "art" from the "artist". i can enjoy a Tom Cruise film just as easily as i enjoy films by Mel GIbson, Roman Polanski or Charlton Heston. but i always find it amusing when the self-righteous get themselves all in a lather over certain celebrities while letting others off the hook so easily. i guess it's easier to get outraged over a pizza company you don't like or eat anyway, than an actor whose work you enjoy. there's nothing a self-righteous blowhard hates more than being confronted with their own hypocrisy, which is probably why it's so fun to do.

watched "Logan Lucky" today and was rewarded with a better movie than i expected to see. sure, there is a degree of ridiculousness to accept, or embrace as the case may be, but the performances are vibrant and fun and yes, heartfelt in some cases. it is a Sonnenfeld flick but feels almost more like a lighthearted Coen Bros movie.

I'm not sure if there is anyone who worked on the movie who has ever done anything illegal or immoral so i realize I am taking a real risk in enjoying it and recommending it to other people, but it is a risk I am willing to take.

Peven wrote:watched "Logan Lucky" today and was rewarded with a better movie than i expected to see. [...] it is a Sonnenfeld flick but feels almost more like a lighthearted Coen Bros movie.

I thought it was a Soderbergh flick so the quality was to be expected. At least it's the reason I want to check it out someday after initially dismissing it after the trailer (Didn't the trailer mention the director or did I pay no attention?)

Peven wrote:watched "Logan Lucky" today and was rewarded with a better movie than i expected to see. [...] it is a Sonnenfeld flick but feels almost more like a lighthearted Coen Bros movie.

I thought it was a Soderbergh flick so the quality was to be expected. At least it's the reason I want to check it out someday after initially dismissing it after the trailer (Didn't the trailer mention the director or did I pay no attention?)